• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Tea Party split from the Rebublican Party

Should the Tea Party split from the Rebublican Party


  • Total voters
    41

BMCM

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party? I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong. They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.
 
I wish they would too. It won't happen. We'll see . . . maybe big donor money dries up. Even they got hurt this time. According to them. We'll see. I'd love to see a real Republican Party again. I'd love to see it.
 
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party? I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong. They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.

Maybe they should, but I do not think the party would last long on its own. There was a reason they joined the ranks of the republican party instead of forming their own party prior to 2010. If my recollection is right on a news report the other day, there are about 50 tea party house members out of 233 and 6 in the senate out of 45 senate republicans. Undoubtedly, if they broke away, some of these would get re-elected but I do not think it would be many. Most of these tea partyers came in from fairly safe districts, but if they broke away then they would be up against a Republican and a Democratic candidate and by splitting the vote, quiet a few Democrats would win in districts before the split they had no business winning. Then they would also be on their own for raising money, the RNC wouldn't be giving them campaign money and most of the corporate and wall street type donors wouldn't either. Corporations and Wall Street firms want to back winners and that is why they donate most of their money to incumbents regardless of party. They also wouldn't care to have to split their donation three ways instead of two.

I also think the tea party which brought about the nominations of Aiken over Steelman in Missouri and Mourdock over Luger in Indiana were the main reason the Republicans lost those states. Both Steelman and Luger would have won easily. If the tea party costs the republicans more seats in 2014, the republican party may start thinking about getting rid of the tea party.
 
They should replace the liberal Republicans with an army of Cruz and Lee.
 
That would severely decrease the influence of Republicans and Tea Partiers.
 
If the Tea Party splits from the Republican Party, we'll see a lot more Democrats winning races.
 
That would severely decrease the influence of Republicans and Tea Partiers.

Yes it would. But what good is the tea party doing republicans when they primary winnable candidates out in favor of their who lose in the general. Aiken and Mourdock come to mind. Luger and Steelman would have won for the GOP. One has to remember that to win in most states, a certain number of independents must be obtained. I live in Georgia and a nomination of a broun or gingrey, tea party candidates for senate, both would lose to Michelle Nunn. Ky is another where Grimes, McConnell challenger as it looks now has won statewide races there. Put Grimes up against a tea party candidate Bevin and another seat goes to the Dems.

The tea party needs to work within the Republican Party or go their own way.
 
Yes it would. But what good is the tea party doing republicans when they primary winnable candidates out in favor of their who lose in the general. Aiken and Mourdock come to mind. Luger and Steelman would have won for the GOP. One has to remember that to win in most states, a certain number of independents must be obtained. I live in Georgia and a nomination of a broun or gingrey, tea party candidates for senate, both would lose to Michelle Nunn. Ky is another where Grimes, McConnell challenger as it looks now has won statewide races there. Put Grimes up against a tea party candidate Bevin and another seat goes to the Dems.

The tea party needs to work within the Republican Party or go their own way.

I agree with that, but it would be even worse if they were actually running candidates against each other in general elections. Sure Nunn would probably win Nunn/Broun. But she would definitely win something like Nunn/Broun/Kingston and Grimes would definitely win Grimes/McConnell/Bevin. I think its better to have the ideological fights in the primary, rather than the general election.
 
I agree with that, but it would be even worse if they were actually running candidates against each other in general elections. Sure Nunn would probably win Nunn/Broun. But she would definitely win something like Nunn/Broun/Kingston and Grimes would definitely win Grimes/McConnell/Bevin. I think its better to have the ideological fights in the primary, rather than the general election.

You're right, in a three way the Dem would win. But how many more years will the Republican Party be willing to have a Mourdock replace a shoe in like Luger in Indiana. You had Aiken where you are, What's her name, don't you think Steelman I think could have fairly easily beaten McCaskill? Inside of the Missouri poll on the senate race there they had an approval rating for the two candidates, McCaskill disapproval rating was at 60%, Aiken's at 70% about a week prior to the election. House district races are a bit different as in a lot of districts the way they are drawn, independents mean nothing.

But how many times do you think the GOP will put up with a candidate that could win a certain state being primaried out by one that is a certain loser in the primary? They better come to an agreement and be able to live with each other or split.
 
You're right, in a three way the Dem would win. But how many more years will the Republican Party be willing to have a Mourdock replace a shoe in like Luger in Indiana. You had Aiken where you are, What's her name, don't you think Steelman I think could have fairly easily beaten McCaskill? Inside of the Missouri poll on the senate race there they had an approval rating for the two candidates, McCaskill disapproval rating was at 60%, Aiken's at 70% about a week prior to the election. House district races are a bit different as in a lot of districts the way they are drawn, independents mean nothing.

But how many times do you think the GOP will put up with a candidate that could win a certain state being primaried out by one that is a certain loser in the primary? They better come to an agreement and be able to live with each other or split.

The Akins of the world are certainly annoying, but I think there'll be more of them if the two sides actually split.
 
The Akins of the world are certainly annoying, but I think there'll be more of them if the two sides actually split.

That's my point. How many more Akins primarying out more winnable choices in the primary will the republicans put up with. The Republicans have an excellent chance to pick up 6 or 7 senate seats next year, WV, SD, MT, AK, LA, AR, NC all come to mind where the incumbent democratic senator either retired or the incumbent is in trouble and the states are rated toss ups. How many of these states will the Republicans lose if they nominate an Aiken/Mourdock type candidate? I mention KY and GA as two republicans seats that could go Democratic with an Aiken/Mourdock candidate on the GOP side of the ballot.

The funny part of this, when the tea party first came out, I felt a real close affinity to it being a Reform Party member and a defict fighting hawk ala Perot. But over the last couple, three years I have lost that affinity as I consider the tea party drifted away from the ideals they begin with. This whole shut down fight was needless and a waste of time, energy and money. Any republican/tea party member with a lick of common political sense should have known attaching a defunding rider for the ACA would be impossible to accomplish. All they had to do is look at the other side of the Capital Building to see a Democratic Senate and if that wasn't enough, to the White House and the president's veto pen.

So why force a battle you know you can't win? Why not idle away sometime in order to fight another day, November 2014 would be that day and that time for the battle over the senate seats I mention. Not 1 Oct.
 
That's my point. How many more Akins primarying out more winnable choices in the primary will the republicans put up with. The Republicans have an excellent chance to pick up 6 or 7 senate seats next year, WV, SD, MT, AK, LA, AR, NC all come to mind where the incumbent democratic senator either retired or the incumbent is in trouble and the states are rated toss ups. How many of these states will the Republicans lose if they nominate an Aiken/Mourdock type candidate? I mention KY and GA as two republicans seats that could go Democratic with an Aiken/Mourdock candidate on the GOP side of the ballot.

I'm concerned that if the Tea Party types start running their own candidates the Democrats would sweep those seats and take back the House. The presidential elections are close enough that neither the Tea Party or the other Republicans would ever win if they split their side of the vote.

The funny part of this, when the tea party first came out, I felt a real close affinity to it being a Reform Party member and a defict fighting hawk ala Perot. But over the last couple, three years I have lost that affinity as I consider the tea party drifted away from the ideals they begin with. This whole shut down fight was needless and a waste of time, energy and money. Any republican/tea party member with a lick of common political sense should have known attaching a defunding rider for the ACA would be impossible to accomplish. All they had to do is look at the other side of the Capital Building to see a Democratic Senate and if that wasn't enough, to the White House and the president's veto pen.

It was a really bad strategy, I don't know what they were trying to accomplish. If anything they only helped the ACA.

So why force a battle you know you can't win? Why not idle away sometime in order to fight another day, November 2014 would be that day and that time for the battle over the senate seats I mention. Not 1 Oct.

Yep, that would've been better.
 
Yeah, because having a party aimed at angry white christian males is really going with the demographics...LOL

They are stupid enough to do it.
 
I really haven't paid much attention to the "Tea Party" in recent years.

Last I was paying attention, they were a coalition of smaller groups (most with some form of "tea party" in their names or creed), working together because they had similar goals.

I would say they have never really been part of the republican party, what with hearing about "tea party candidates" and/or "office holders" from time to time.

They do wield influence over some areas of republican control, but I wouldn't say they are exactly PART of the republican party.


OR am I way off here...


Edit: The thing is, from what I've heard I agree with them on some matters, at least in part. They just have a bunch of hellaciously heavy baggage they haul around with the good bits.
 
I'm concerned that if the Tea Party types start running their own candidates the Democrats would sweep those seats and take back the House. The presidential elections are close enough that neither the Tea Party or the other Republicans would ever win if they split their side of the vote.



It was a really bad strategy, I don't know what they were trying to accomplish. If anything they only helped the ACA.



Yep, that would've been better.

Yeah, for the first or maybe even two elections what you say I think would be true. But I think over 2 election cycles the tea party would cease to exist to be a threat. I do wonder if trying to appease them, that in the long run what you fear will happen anyway and then the shedding of the tea party would be that much tougher if possible and painful as you would have to again go through a couple of election cycles. But it much worse shape.

But we shall see whats happens. We may be jabbering over nothing.
 
Yeah, for the first or maybe even two elections what you say I think would be true. But I think over 2 election cycles the tea party would cease to exist to be a threat. I do wonder if trying to appease them, that in the long run what you fear will happen anyway and then the shedding of the tea party would be that much tougher if possible and painful as you would have to again go through a couple of election cycles. But it much worse shape.

But we shall see whats happens. We may be jabbering over nothing.

Where do they get their funding from to help their candidates?
 
Where do they get their funding from to help their candidates?

Each candidate and each party has their list of donors, fat cats etc. Then there is the corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, etc. These last ones usually support incumbents more than challengers as incumbents usually win regardless of party. The two parties have different committees for the house and senate and a national one that receives donations and distributes them. Having worked for Perot, I know how hard it is to get a corporation/wall street firm etc to give money to a third party candidate which if the tea party split from the GOP it would become. These institutions do not like have to give to two parties much less three. But they want the people who we elect to owe them.

I did a search for tea party members in congress which gave me 60 names in the house after 2010 and 47 after last year. 8 tea party members in the senate after 2010 and 6 after last year. So there is already a thinning. So perhaps we might just let nature take its course and look at another thinning next year. But the question I have, with this thinning how many winnable seats will be lost because of a candidate that has no appear outside his base?
 
As part of the Republican party, the Tea Party can influence rather large decisions. As a third party they're going to win about as many elections as other third parties do. That is to say, not many. I think the only way they separate from the Republicans is if the Republican party wants them out. Of course, if the Tea Party picks up on that movement within the Republican party it might make sense for them to leave on their own rather than be forced out since it would look better.
 
I don't think the Tea Party has enough crossover appeal and the two parties seem to have created a system that makes it extremely difficult for a third party to win. It is better for a third party movement to work through the existing parties imo like the Tea Party and Libertarians have done in the GOP.

If I understand the 2010 legislation that created Super PACs, it makes it much easier for a third party movement to gain power within the two parties themselves. Ideally if you could get a Tea Party type movement that is attractive to the say 80% of the population that are not on the extreme ends of the political spectrum, it would likely be much more successful movement imo. Something like a centrist think tank with great, creative public policy ideas(my public policy ideas that beautifully blend Conservatism and Liberalism in a synergistic way :)) aligning with an organization such as No Labels.

Funding provided by Super PACs through huge donations by a handful of billionaires like Bloomberg, Musk, Gates, etc (say a total of a billion dollars at minimum with all the Super PACs combined). Unlike the Tea Party that started more grass roots, this will be highly organized and dynamic at the top. It will need to have the ability to attract and convince a much higher quality of political candidates to run as a "no label" republican, "no label" democrat, or "no label" independent depending on the easiest path to election in congressional districts. These candidates will have to support the tight public policy plan of the think tank so that real change can be implemented. Need to have some political stars to rise to be face of movement. Create a national website where the public can easily find the website to the no label candidate in their districts. The branding, campaigns, and funding all need to be dynamic.
 
If the Tea Party has to deal with RINOS like McCain, King, and the fat guy,,,,,,,yes,,split!
 
If the Tea Party splits from the Republican Party, we'll see a lot more Democrats winning races.
Conservative PUPPIES & TEABAGGERS going to see the Dem's winning more races. Cartoon days will end in 2014 and 2016 " Green Egg," it's going to take a long time for the people to forget this shutdown act of treason against the country.Costing the country $24,Billion,and they're always talking bout spending to much money and didn't get one thing they were asking for, not even OBAMACARE. Split far what,they're one in the same. NUTS!!
 
I think any actual Tea Party split that we eventually see will be a decisive split from the land of the Liberals. It is obvious at this point that no nation infested with American Liberalism can long survive.

It should be said however, that certainly all Republicans and Conservatives truly appreciate the concern for their welfare and longevity that the Liberals demonstrate on a daily basis, well illustrated by the posts on even this thread.

Yes, we know that the central question is Without adult Conservative institutions and economic support, how will Liberals ever survive, but most Conservatives are nearly willing to jettison any worries about that problem.
 
There is no room in a two party system for a farther right or farther left party. Splitting would be suicide for the right.

What would actually be more sensible would be for the Blue Dogs and more liberal Republicans to form a center party. There is actually a space for a centrist party made up of Olympia Snowe/Joe Manchin types. And it might also attract people like John McCain that Tea Partiers complain about so much.
 
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party? I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong. They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.

No. The Tea Partiers should purge the RINOs from the Party.

I like the idea of a major political party with a concentrated membership that remembers that this country was founded in an insurrection, and that its founding document proclaims that it is the right of the People -- any people, to have another at any such time as shall seem good to them.

Our leaders should have this fact constantly in mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom